Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
assetcache-mcp

assetcache-mcp

by v0o0v
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_packs

List the registered pack catalog, including asset counts and aggregate metadata, to survey available Unity game assets.

Instructions

등록된 팩 카탈로그 + 자산 수 + aggregate_meta 나열.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_packs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.7

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output scope (catalog, asset count, aggregate_meta) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it triggers any scanning, or if any side effects occur. For a list operation, this is a minor gap, so it earns a 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no unnecessary filler. This is ideal for a parameterless tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential output components and resource qualifier. It doesn't explain usage context or alternatives, but that gaps are captured in usage_guidelines. The core functionality is complete enough for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output content rather than parameter details, which are nonexistent. It adds value by explaining what the return payload includes.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it lists the registered pack catalog, along with asset count and aggregate_meta. The verb '나열' (list) is specific, and the resource (pack catalog) distinguishes it from tools like list_assets. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as list_unity_packages, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_assets or list_unity_packages. There is no mention of use cases, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the name and description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools